Progress has been made recently in three federal lawsuits, all of which
attack state laws which prevent minor party or independent candidates from
having appropriate labels appear on the ballot next to their names.

1. Louisiana: on June 26, U.S. District Court Judge Ralph Tyson denied
the state's motion to dismiss Rosenthal v McKeithen, 00-612.
Now the case can proceed. It had been stalled for the last nine months.

This case challenges state law which denies any label to minor party or
independent candidates (except for presidential candidates). Even the word
"independent" is not permitted. However, candidates who are members of major
parties have their party label printed on the ballot. The plaintiff ran as
an independent candidate for Congress last year.

2. Ohio: on July 9, the Libertarian Party filed its brief with the
U.S. Supreme Court in Schrader v Blackwell, 01-59. This is the
case on whether minor party nominees who use the independent candidate
procedure, may have the name of that minor party on the ballot. Most minor
parties in Ohio use the independent candidate procedures, because they are so
much easier than the new party procedures.

The U.S. Supreme Court won't say whether it will hear this case, until
October 2001 at the earliest. This is the first appeal filed with the
Supreme Court by any minor party, since the Court decided Bush v
Gore and Cook v Gralike. Both of those cases ought to be
powerful precedents in favor of all three lawsuits mentioned in this story.
Bush v Gore said states cannot discriminate against any class of
voters. Yet laws which help Democratic and Republican voters to know whom
their nominees are, and which deny the same help to members of other parties,
obviously discriminate for some voters, and against others.

Cook v Gralike said that states may not discriminate against a
class of candidates for Congress. Fortunately, the plaintiff-candidates in
both the Louisiana and Ohio cases are congressional candidates.

3. Virginia: on July 23, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against state law,
which provides no method for a new party to ever have its name on the ballot
(except for president). Libertarian Party of Virginia v Quinn,
no. 3:01-cv-468.

Until this year, there were no party labels on Virginia ballots whatsoever,
except for presidential candidates. But in 2001, because of a new law passed
last year, there are labels for all state and federal candidates, but only
for the nominees of parties which polled 10% at a previous election. The
plaintiff candidates are Bill Redpath for Governor, and Gary Reams for
Lieutenant Governor. State law says they should have "independent" next to
their names on the ballot, even though their petitions informed signers that
they are Libertarian nominees, not independents.

1. Connecticut: HB 5042 was signed into law on May 4. It permits
ex-felons to vote while they are still on parole or probation.

2. Florida: a trial date has been set for the lawsuit which attacks
the state's ban on voter registration for ex-felons. It will be in January
2002. Johnson v Bush, 00-3542, federal court, Miami.

3. Illinois: on May 9, a state Circuit Court in Cook County ruled that
state law, barring ex-felons from holding municipal elective office, is
unconstitutional. People ex rel Devine v Luster, 01-co-44.
Since there is no law barring ex-felons from holding state or county office,
the judge said there can't be a strong state interest in barring them from
holding municipal office.

SB 747 was signed into law by Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber on July 2. It
changes the definition of "major party" from one which polled 15% of the vote
in two elections in a row, to one which has registration of at least 5%. In
Oregon, a major party is one which nominates by primary. Qualified minor
parties nominate by convention.

The practical impact of this bill will probably be nil, since no party, other
than the Democrats or Republicans, has held 5% registration in any state, for
almost 90 years. Nevertheless, Libertarians sought the bill, feeling that
someday the party might be able to get its registration up to 5%.

SB 747 should not be confused with SB 777, which also passed this year (see
B.A.N. of July 1, 2001). SB 777 makes
it easier for a qualified minor party to remain qualified.

On July 13, Alaska's new primary law went into effect. Each of the state's
six qualified parties will have its own primary ballot, and each will decide
which voters may vote in that party's primary. The deadline for each party
to decide which voters may vote in its 2002 primary, is September 1, 2001.
The new law replaces Alaska's blanket primary.

1. Illinois: Governor George Ryan signed SB 1109 on July 20. Now, any
adult resident of the state may circulate any petition, anywhere in the state.

2. New York: the State Board of Elections has ruled that any
registered voter in the state may circulate a petition, anywhere in the
state. However, if the petition is to place a candidate on a primary ballot,
the circulator must be a member of that candidate's party.

State legislatures in three-fourths of the states have adjourned for the
year. However, in the remaining states, the legislature sits permanently.
In some of those states, ballot reform bills will be introduced soon. Also,
in states in which the legislature won't meet again until 2002, plans for
bills next year are already underway.

1. Illinois: activists believe they can find sponsors to re-introduce
a ballot access reform bill which was last introduced in 1994. Currently,
minor party and independent candidates for district and county office need
petitions signed by 5% of the last vote cast. However, candidates in major
party primaries only need petitions of one-half of 1% of the last vote cast.
The proposed bill would equalize the petition burdens. To help with this
effort, contact Austin Hough at (630)-378-4593, or chair@il.lp.org

2. Indiana: Representative Mark Kruzan (D-Bloomington), majority
leader of the House, has agreed to introduce a bill next year to lower the
number of signatures to one-half of 1% of the last vote cast. Current law
requires a petition of 2% of the last vote cast. The bill will also ease the
petition deadline from June to July. To help, contact the Indiana Coalition
for Fair Election Laws at (317)-581-4815, or ICFEL@earthlink.net

3. Michigan: Representative Leon Drolet has agreed to introduce a bill
in September to make it easier for a party to remain on the ballot. Current
law measures a party's performance only by looking at its candidate for the
most important statewide office (such as president, in a presidential
election year). The bill would give credit to a party for its highest
vote-getter. It's very common for minor parties to get a much higher vote
for less important statewide office, than for president.

4. Oklahoma: the State Election Board has a new Secretary, Mike
Clingman. Traditionally, the Secretary of the State Election Board has
influence with the legislature, on election law matters. Senator David
Herbert, a Democrat, has asked Clingman to study the state's ballot access
laws.

Oklahoma requires more signatures, for a minor party or independent
presidential candidate, than any other state, when the requirements are
compared on a percentage basis. Oklahomans for Ballot Access Reform (OBAR)
has been formed to change this. Contact OBAR at (405)-736-6330, or
(405)-598-8963, or randazzo@theshop.net

5. Pennsylvania: the Green Party hopes to get a bill introduced very
soon, to reduce the petition requirement for the nominees of "qualified"
minor parties. The statewide requirement would drop from about 25,000
signatures, to about 6,000 signatures. To help, contact John Stith at
(814)-234-4552 or stith-greens@hotmail.com

Next year, Alaskans will vote on whether to provide for Instant-Runoff voting
in state elections. Because IRV is still murky to most Alaskans, IRV
supporters are circulating an initiative to provide for it in Anchorage city
elections. That initiative will be voted in this year. IRV proponents
expect the campaign in Anchorage to educate Anchorage voters about IRV, which
should help in the statewide vote in 2002. Approximately half of all
Alaskans live in Anchorage.

An initiative is circulating in California which would provide that an
otherwise term-limited state legislator could run for re-election. However,
he or she would need signatures of 20% of the last vote cast, to do so. The
initiative is expected to qualify for the March 2002 primary ballot.

Between 1870 and 1980, Illinois used Cumulative Voting for elections to the
lower house of the state legislature. Each district elected three
legislators. Voters were free to cast one vote for each of three candidates.
But they could also do something different: they could give three votes to
just one candidate. Or, they could give one and one-half votes to each of
two candidates.

A campaign is currently underway in Illinois to restore cumulative voting.
HJRCA-4, pending in the legislature, would amend the state constitution to
restore it.

The system made it possible for the weaker of the two major parties, in any
given region, to have some representation. In a typical Chicago district,
for example, usually two Democrats and one Republican were elected.

One might think that Illinois' cumulative voting system might also make it
easier for a minor party to elect a legislator. However, another Illinois
law (which is still on the books) thwarted that notion. Illinois requires
new or previously unqualified parties to run a full slate of candidates.
Therefore, since minor parties in Illinois are almost never "qualified"
parties, they were forced to run three candidates in each district they
contested. It was illegal for them to run just one candidate. So, the
entire advantage of cumulative voting was eliminated for them. Cumulative
voting only works (for a weak party) if it runs just a single candidate, so
all the party supporters will be motivated to "bullet vote" for that one
candidate, giving him or her all of their three votes.

Recently, the prestigious Institute for Government and Public Affairs at the
University of Illinois released a study, praising Cumulative Voting. The
Report has generated considerable publicity. The Chicago
Sun-Times editorialized for a return to Cumulative Voting, on July 16.
Former Congressmen John B. Anderson and Abner Mikva are working for the idea
in their capacity as Co-chairs of the Midwest Democracy Center.

Although the study decries a lack of competition in Illinois legislative
elections, it says nothing about the "full slate" law.

Activists who support equal treatment for all parties, ought to insist that
if Cumulative Voting is restored, that the law requiring minor parties to run
three candidates in State House districts should be repealed. The Midwest
Democracy Center is at mdc@prairienet.org or (312)-587-7060.
www.midwestdemocracy.org

On May 8, the State Supreme Court issued a ruling which will make it much
easier to disqualify petitions in the future. In re Nomination of
Flaherty, 770 A 2d 327. Past Pennsylvania precedents said that if a
circulator sees a voter sign a petition, that is sufficient. The Court
established a new rule that the circulator must speak to everyone who signs.

Also, the Court ruled that printed signatures are invalid. In this case, one
signer is 81 years old and no longer uses cursive script to sign. The Court
said, in that case, the voter must be handled in the manner reserved for
signers who cannot sign their names at all, and who make an "X" for a
signature (this requires a separate statement by someone else who watched the
"X" being made).

Finally, the Court reversed previous precedent and said that petitions which
show an address different from their registration address, are always
invalid. In the past, the signature was valid if the address shown on the
petition was the actual address of the signer.

The candidate who lost the case was kept off the Democratic ballot for a
statewide judicial office because (after the court's crabbed interpretation)
she was one signature short of the requirement. She needed 100 signatures
from each of five counties, but ended up with only 99 in one of them.

On July 20, an Oregon Circuit Court judge struck down a 1992 initiative which
amended the state constitution to impose term limits on state legislators,
state executive officers, and members of Congress. Lehman v
Bradbury, 01-c-14353, Marion Co.

The Court said that the initiative did not deal with a "single subject". All
initiatives in Oregon, and in many states, must comprise only a "single
subject". Of course, it is not obvious that a measure which imposes term
limits on three different types of elected office-holders, does not deal with
a "single subject".

More alarming for supporters of the initiative procedure is that a court
could strike down an initiative, on such procedural grounds, nine years after
it has passed. No court would think of striking down a law passed by a
legislature, nine years after the law had passed, on the grounds that perhaps
the legislature hadn't followed proper procedures when it passed the bill.

This initiative had been very popular. It had polled 69.5% of the vote, and
had carried every county.

Under the theory propounded by the court, no initiative is safe from a
procedural attack, no matter how many decades passed since it was passed.
The State Supreme Court will consider the state's appeal.

Although the part of the 1992 initiative dealing with congressional term
limits was not in operation (because only an amendment to the U.S.
Constitution can put congressional term limits into effect), the initiative
contained a severability clause.

1. Arizona: the Voting Integrity Project has settled its lawsuit,
filed to stop internet voting in the Democratic presidential primary last
year. The group is confident that a National Science Foundation study of
internet voting will resolve the issue of whether internet voting (whether
the terminal is at the polls, or in private homes) can ever be safe.

Arizona (2): the last issue of
B.A.N. reported that a State Court of Appeals had ruled that
the state's mid-June petition deadline for independent candidates is too
early. The state has asked the court to clarify whether the decision applies
only to presidential candidates, or to all independent candidates.
Browne v Bayless, 1 ca-cv 00-546.

2. Colorado: on April 12, a state court of appeals ruled that groups
which run campaign ads need not reveal their contributors, if the ads don't
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a particular candidate.
League of Women Voters v Davidson, 23 P 3d 1266. The League is
not appealing.

3. Connecticut: on June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear
Seymour v Election Enforcement Commission, 00-1360. The issue
was whether the Constitution protects anonymous campaign literature about
candidates, if the candidate himself didn't issue the literature. The lower
court had said that such anonymous literature can be banned. The U.S.
Supreme Court denied the appeal on the last day of the term.

3. Massachusetts: on May 3, supporters of public financing in state
elections filed a lawsuit, to force the legislature to fund the program. The
voters had approved an initiative to provide for public funding in 1998, yet
the legislature has never appropriated the money to pay for it. Tolman
v Finneran, cv-01-10756-pbs, U.S. District Court.

4. Michigan: the 6th circuit will hold a hearing on September 18, in
Green Party of Michigan v Miller, 00-1407. The issue is whether
the state must permit parties (which are not qualified statewide) to qualify
in just part of the state.

5. Missouri: on June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court told the 8th circuit
to re-hear Missouri Republican Party v Lamb, 227 F 3d 1070. The
8th circuit had ruled that the First Amendment protects the right of
political parties to spend as much of their own money as they wish, to elect
their candidates. This decision is now subject to reversal, as a result of
the U.S. Supreme Court's Colorado Republican decision of June 25.

6. New Mexico: the Green Party will file a lawsuit in the next few
days, to regain its status as a major party. At issue is whether major
parties must poll 5% for President, or for any statewide office.

7. Oregon: on July 11, the 9th circuit upheld the state's vote-by-mail
law, for federal office. Voting Integrity Project v Keisling,
99-35337. Federal law says states must hold federal elections in November,
but Oregon's mail voting permits voting to take place throughout half of
October as well as in early November. The Voting Integrity Project hasn't
decided yet whether to appeal.

Every year, the ten states mentioned above let taxpayers send a contribution
to the political party of the taxpayer's choice. The chart above shows the
amounts donated to each political party named on tax forms. The Ohio form
only lets a taxpayer decide whether to contribute, but doesn't let him or her
choose a party; the money is divided equally among parties which polled 20%
for president or Governor at the last election. All the other states
mentioned above allow a free choice of party.

The parties in the "Other (1)" column are: Minnesota Independence Party
(Governor Ventura's party), the Rhode Island Cool Moose Party, and the
Independent American Party of Utah. The parties in the "Other (2)" column
are: Progressive Minnesota ($491) and Grassroots ($1,828).

The above image is a British ballot for its June 2001 House of Commons
election. This is the first time that British ballots have ever used party
emblems. Ballot access procedures in Britain are not discriminatory, as they
are in the U.S. All candidates face the same requirements: a filing fee of
500 pounds (about $700) and 10 signatures. The money is returned if the
candidate polls 5%.

This chart shows the highest numerical petition requirement that was met by
any political party, or any independent candidate, in each presidential and
congressional election year in the 20th century. See below for more
information.

The preceding is a list of the largest petition requirement overcome, in each
election year of the 20th century.

The chart shows that, for the first half of the 20th century, very large
signature hurdles were almost never overcome by any parties or candidates.
As late as 1946, no petition requirement above 31,000 signatures had ever
been met.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in its ballot access decisions of the 1970's, seemed
to think that parties and candidates routinely comply with requirements of
hundreds of thousands of signatures. The Court said in 1974 that a
"reasonably diligent" independent candidate ought be able to collect 325,000
valid signatures in 25 days. In reality, no independent candidate has ever
met a requirement greater than 135,000 signatures.

The North Carolina Libertarian Party has virtually finished a petition drive,
for the elections of 2002 and 2004 (it still lacks 300 signatures). The
requirement is 58,842 signatures. That will probably be the most difficult
requirement that any group overcomes, for the 2002 election.

The Greens/Green Party USA, one of the two national organizations of Greens,
held a national meeting in Carbondale, Illinois, July 21-23. A majority of
voting delegates voted in favor of the "Boston proposal", that would let the
Association of State Green Parties be recognized as the national party
structure, with The Greens/Green Party USA becoming a "club" within that
formal structure. However, the proposal needed two-thirds, and it only
polled 55%.

The Association of State Green Parties will ask the Federal Election
Commission to recognize it as the national Green Party, regardless of that
outcome in Carbondale. Activists in The Greens/Green Party USA who favored
the compromise, now plan to create a new organization, the Green Movement.
It will play the same role that was once planned for The Greens/Green Party
USA.

New Jersey elects its governor this year. Besides the Republican and
Democratic parties, these parties are running: Conservative, Green,
Libertarian, Socialist, and Socialist Workers (also, there are two
independents, including State Senator Bill Schulter). Four years ago, the
same parties were in the gubernatorial race, along with the Natural Law
Party.

Reclaim Democracy! is a 501(c)(3) organization that has existed since
1997. Its goal is to shrink the influence of corporations over government.
It has launched the Citizens Debate Commission, hoping to replace the
Commission on Presidential Debates as the sponsor of the 2004 presidential
debates. It hopes to gain the assistance of the League of Women Voters.

The Citizens Debate Commission would hold one general election presidential
debate, at which every candidate on the ballot in enough states to win, would
be invited. The additional debates would be limited to those candidates who
were at 5% in nationwide polls. (303)-402-0105; Box 532, Boulder Co 80306;
www.reclaimdemocracy.org

The Constitution Party has 200 signatures in Montana. The Libertarian Party
has 2,500 in Arkansas, 200 in Hawaii, 13,000 in Michigan, 2,000 in New
Mexico, and 5,500 in Ohio. It also has 1,400 in Maryland for a candidate for
Governor, but the signatures are invalid, since they don't include anyone for
Lieutenant Governor; the party must start all over. In Alabama, the party
asserts that it is a qualified party, and has presented the Secretary of
State with a legal memo in support of its position. The Natural Law Party
has 5,000 signatures in Ohio.